Loselie's Garden in May, 2008

Loselie's Garden in May, 2008

An Essay submitted to NPR's "This I Believe."

I believe in God. For me He is the Christian God, and He’s active in my life. He loves me, and guides me toward my goal of living with Him, and learning in His eternal universe.

But I don’t know whether there is a god.

He has never intruded into my physical world. I have not had a vision of Him. I have not heard His voice. All I have of Him is mental. If I have prayed for His help, and my situation resolved to my liking, I have thanked Him, often with great emotion and joy all the while knowing I could be deceiving myself. One time I lost my car to a fire. For several months my wife, my three children and I prayed. God provided temporary transportation through a car loaned by a fellow church member, and God finally provided a $10,000 check in the mail—an outright gift from the Mother and Dad of dear friends. That could be God, couldn’t it? Of course, it could be just—nice!

Often, though I have searched the recesses of all my spiritual experiences for Him, He has eluded me. Then I have felt sure I have been deluding myself, although I know that any real God will often be far beyond where I could ever find Him. I ask Him for power to become a better man, father, husband, but I remain weak, temperamental, and fat. Still, I continue to invite Him to give me the insight into real change.

So why believe in Him, when He is so distant, aloof, and hard to find? Here are two of my favorite reasons:

First, if there is no god, then the human race is doomed. We already have the means of destroying, not only man, but all Earthly life. And there will be nothing wrong with that if we got here accidentally. It will be just the next random, meaningless event. It will eventually happen—unless a good God finally destroys evil, and teaches the ways of peace to us all. So I believe He will.

Second, I want to be a good person. But without God I would be foolish to live for the greater good. If there’s no God, I must live for myself, and be as happy as I can, no matter the cost to you and others. My belief in God gives me the capacity to also hope it is safe to trust you. Otherwise I must use you for my own ends. Therefore, I’d rather believe in God.

God leaves many questions unanswered so that we may freely choose Him. But He does not want us to give up our search, and some of us will find Him in wildly different places than others, or may not even recognize we have found Him. Someday, when it is safe for Him to, He will come back to our world, and teach us the ways of peace. This I believe.

Just checking over my shoulder....

Matthew 2:1-12

After Jesus was born some magi (or Wise Men or royal astrologers (see footnote in the New Living Translation) or a band of scholars or philosophers) showed up in Jerusalem asking, "Where is the child who has been born to be king of the Jews? When we were in the east, we saw his star. Now we have come to worship him." Matthew 2:2 (New International Reader's Version)

When Herod heard what they wanted he was upset. I understand that. He was the King in Jerusalem. If a baby King had been born it was his competition. There are a couple of things about this that I don't get, though. First the Bible says, "Everyone in Jerusalem was troubled too." Matthew 2:3 (New International Reader's Version)

Herod feeling threatened, I understand. But what was the rest of the city worried about? Here were some foreign men wandering around town looking for a Jewish baby that had been signaled by celestial events seen in another country! Weren't they ready for one of their own to take the throne? Maybe they were upset because they figured Herod was about to get his shorts all up in a wad, and they were going to be the recipients of his bad mood? Maybe they didn't want to wait for a baby to grow up and deliver them--they wanted the Romans dead immediately?

The other big thing that is weird is the reaction of the religious leaders. "So Herod called together all the chief priests of the people. He also called the teachers of the law. He asked them where the Christ was going to be born." Matthew 2:4 (New International Reader's Version) What did they do? Did they hem and haw around? No, they quoted the prophecy in Micah 5:2! This blows me away.

They apparently knew and remembered Balam's prophecy to King Balak when Israel was journeying to Canaan from Egyptian slavery. And they associated it with the arrival of the Eastern wise men searching for the new baby King. They also also knew that the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, based on what they quoted to Herod.

Miraculous events were taking place in their town before their eyes, and they recognized that the events fit Biblical prophecy. They were expecting and dreaming of the arrival of the Messiah. They should have been overjoyed, but instead they were "disturbed." This I do not understand!

Matthew 1:18-25

This is my first passage studied using last week's sermon guidelines.

First I read the passage over. Then I read it aloud. It seemed to be just a narrative of the mental and emotional state of Mary and Joseph in the days leading up to Jesus' birth. Then I started to read the passage in various other versions. They all seemed about the same. I read 16 different versions until I came to the Wycliffe New Testament. All of a sudden his translation of verse 21 leaped out at me!

"And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall make his people safe from their sins."

Whoa!! "...make His people safe from their sins." What was Wycliffe thinking? Every translation except his had used the word "save." This seems significant to me in light of my underlying question:

What does this passage tell me about God?

I'm looking for a picture that matches the Christian and biblical rhetoric that God is loving. And my context is--in the Bible stories is He actually loving? Or are we supposed to accept His actions as loving and then redefine love so that it matches His ways?

For example, He opens the earth and it swallows up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Okay, is that loving, and if so in what way? I doubt it would be considered so if I had that power and used it on my enemy, would it?

That discussion is for another day, but my fundamental question for each passage will be, what am I really learning about God from these words? Is Wycliffe thinking something different, therefore using a different word than all the other translators, or is it just a coincidental difference?

Also, remember that his is the oldest translation I have available. Since none who followed him kept "safe" did they believe his translation was erroneous? Were they correcting an inaccuracy?

The discussion arises because Christians universally agree that what Jesus came to do was to legally release us from punishment for our evil by His death. He saves us from suffering God's wrath by suffering under it in our stead.

From there it is easy to posit that coming to "...save His people from their sins" means protecting them from punishment that must be meted out in order for God's claim of justice to continue to be valid. Even though the sinner escapes punishment, God's justice lives on in the death of Jesus.

It seems much harder to fit your thinking to that picture if you say He came to "...make his people safe from their sins." Christians don't normally fear sin all that much. At church you can hear whole sermons exhorting you to fear God (see post re: May 14 sermon), but there's rarely a mention of the consequences and destructiveness of sin. In fact we don't want to have to fear sin. Besides, who wants to be made safe from their sins? That sounds suspiciously like sin will not be part of my future. That'd be no fun! Why give up what I love when I'm "once saved, always saved?"

The thing is; which picture of God is more loving? A god who allows us to sin, but through Jesus' death, bears our punishment? Or a God Who sends Jesus, not to reap the consequences of our actions, but to make sin something we're safe from? Something that no longer controls us? (We must talk more about if and how He did this.)

For are we not under domination of a fallen nature that we want removed? The God Who restores my power to live as I choose, if He's out there, would be an awesome God, no? I don't like having to say, "What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise" (Romans 7:15. The Message). I believe the God Who frees me from sin's control is truly the loving God; not the one who removes punishment, but not sin from my life.

Jesus did not waste time coming here to change nothing. We are not allowed to continue in our self-destructive, delusional state. Jesus didn't come to take punishment we deserve so that we're free to remain sinners. He came to make us safe from our sins! He came to give back our freedom to be God-like. He came to remove sin's domination, and restore our ability to be who we choose to be.

Hurrah for Wycliffe!! All translators following him may have thought he got it wrong here, but his translation sure makes God look good. I believe he got it right.

21 May 2005

Today's sermon was the last in a series about the Psalms. The pastor chose Psalm 119, and of course the subject was Bible study, and its value.

Here are his suggestions for daily devtional study:

1. Choose a short passage.
2. Pray for God's leading as you study the passage.
3. Read the passage outloud.
4. Ask yourself the question, "What does this tell me about God or Jesus?" and jot it down in a notebook.
5. Ask youself, "What does this tell me about how to treat people?"
6. Ask, "What does God tell me to do today?" in this passage?
7. Memorize part or all of the passage.

I think these are good suggestions, and I'm going to try this method. I want to highten the focus of step four, and change the question slightly. I believe the reason we're here right now is because of the great controversy, and I believe the great controversy is about God's character and government. Jesus came to show us the Father's character so I want the question to be "What is the picture of God in this passage?" We have to know that we love Him, and we learn that by finding a picture of Someone loving.

Christianity and Its Influence

In yesterday's sermon the pastor told a story about the arrival of American soldiers at a small village in Okinawa. When they arrived they were met by the mayor and the school teacher. These men could not speak English so an interpreter was called. While they waited the soldiers noticed a leather bound book.

When the interpreter told them what the men were saying the soldiers were surprised to find that the whole village was Christian. The mayor and school teacher had been converts 30 years before when a missionary passed through, staying just long enough to give them the gospel. He left them a Bible--the one they lovingly kept with them now--and taught them two hymns.

The villagers did not know the missionary's name, but they knew he was from America. Therefore, when the soldiers from America arrived, they were greeted as fellow Christians.

The soldiers were surprised to find that there was no jail in the village, and no police. Everyone showed the utmost respect for the soldiers, and the Bible they had treasured for the years since the American missionary left.

In America, many despair because our society is becoming more secular, more dangerous, more divided. At the same time we are becoming more demanding of our rights and of politically correct standards that some believe need to be enforced on us all.

Some people may think that we can solve our problems by educating future generations about the wonderful personal freedoms we have in America like the right to a free press, the right to be innocent until proven guilty, and the right not to incriminate ourselves; about the unmatched form of government set up by our forefathers; about the attainability of the American dream; and about the right we all have to exercise religious freedom.

I believe that we have all these things because our nation was founded based on a Christian world view. It was a view that had been informed by persecution from other Christians, and it was a view that no one could force others to the same belief we held. All are free to find truth as they see it. However, our form of government will not work unless there is, in reality, an absolute truth that the majority are striving toward.

When we come to the point that we must accept that someone who holds beliefs that are antagonistic or even threatening to our democratic way of life or our Christian beliefs has as much chance of being correct as we are, then we're in trouble. We're in trouble because a belief like that will seek to destroy our way--not return the favor of freedom for those in opposition to them.

We can afford to give others freedom only if they use it responsibly and only if they will respect that same right for us. We give followers of Islam the right to worship as they choose. However, if for example, Muslims became the majority in America, they would not allow us to worship as we chose because it is fundamental to them that any who do not worship Allah must convert or die. We have seen as secular humanists have become a larger and more influential part of our population that they too, do not believe in equal freedom before the law.

Humanists believe that Christianity is their enemy because its believers seek to promote their view of the world. In the secular humanist paradigm no one should try to influence others to a different view, because they believe all religion is man made to control the masses. What they so often do not see is that their efforts to stifle the influence of Christianity is a restraint on the very freedoms that allow them to exercise their rights to believe as they do. In effect, if secular humanism were a majority view, all religion would be banned as being unsupportable by scientific evidence.

What I'm trying to say is that we have fantastic freedom and opportunity in America. But that very freedom and opportunity is rooted in the fact that America was founded by Christians who were, to some extent, Christlike in their view that others should be free. It is a very rare outlook, and is becoming more and more endangered.

As we move farther from being a Christian nation we move closer to the chasm than can swallow up all our freedoms. You may not be a Christian, but if you're a thinking person you must be grateful that our founding forefathers were. You must understand that while Christians believe their world view is correct and the best they, as part of their view, allow others freedom. It is really the fundamental underlying all true Christianity.

It is when Christians lose sight of the fact that they can only invite others to their way; and can never force or coerce, that Christians receive a bad reputation. As Christians we must remain tolerant and loving while simultaneously courageously evangelical. We believe we're right, but we believe all have the right to choose any path. Even the path to personal and eventual national destruction.

14 May 2005 Sermon

The sermon last week was about Psalms 79. I struggled with it as I do with all of Asaph's psalms. He seems overly concerned with God's power to destroy and His great holiness that does not countenance our smallness and evil. Pastor Mike told us that God is both merciful and just. He is merciful to those who love and accept Him, and just (or wrathful) to those who reject Him.

Seems tyrannical to me...

Too often we teach that God will only take so much of our sin before we suffer at His hand. It is an obvious truth to me that sin carries consequences far greater than we are willing to admit. A person who sins jeopardizes or even destroys life. That is why sin is so sinful—it is truly harmful and dangerous to the sinner and to those around the sinner. Any who indulge in sin's "forbidden actions" will suffer, not God's wrath, but the very real reactions caused by those actions. God IS portrayed as wrathful in the Bible, but Romans 1 goes to great lengths to explain that God’s wrath is letting people go. It is letting people reap what they have sown. No punishment has to be imposed for us to be destroyed by our sin.

If we "Christians" were to spend our time showing how awful sin is and how wonderful God is to try to keep us from it, He would look a whole lot more loveable. He prohibits sin for the love of us, to keep us safe. He portrays Himself as wrathful not because sin is offensive to Him, but to help us stay away from what is so unsafe and risky to us.

Last week in church we were admonished to stay pure. And we were told to love God for His mercy when we accomplish it (purity). But not a word was spoken about the true face of sin and its train of woe. We cannot but hate something that wants us destroyed. If we’re taught how injurious sin is we’ll learn to hate it in our lives. But if we believe God eventually kills us for our sin, how can we love Him? If we know our destruction is caused by our own wrongdoing and the tempter who tries to draw us into sinning, how can we fail to despise both sin and the tempter?

In the final end of this struggle, this Great Controversy between God and His adversary who accuses Him of character flaws and poor government, Christians too often picture the choice for humans as love for God or eternal destruction imposed directly by the One who created us in the first place. We don't stop to think that He does not need to destroy us. If we insist on living outside the parameters He teaches and requests us to abide by, we completely destroy ourselves, and many around us.

Let us who propose to teach about God leave Him free to love. He is not our Destroyer—we do a fine job of spoiling and ruining ourselves. Let the destruction come from its true source--sin. That is really why something's called sin; it is injurious to some part of God's creation (usually us). There is no way to sin without receiving its results. Ultimately, death! God doesn't have to do a thing to us.

When we learn to teach that God is always our Protector and never our destroyer, we’ll have a message that draws men to Him. Then we can say He loves us, and it will make sense. To believe a God of love can finally destroy in everlasting hell the very person He has done so much to try to save strains credulity. I don’t think I could ever love a God like that. To believe that God would be willing to portray Himself as wrathful and judgmental if it shelters us from taking devastating action until we grow up reveals a love that is irresistible!